| Title |
Observational Review and Analysis of Concussion: a Method for Conducting a Standardized Video Analysis of Concussion in Rugby League
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine - Open, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40798-017-0093-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrew J. Gardner, Christopher R. Levi, Grant L. Iverson |
| Abstract |
Several professional contact and collision sports have recently introduced the use of sideline video review for club medical staff to help identify and manage concussions. As such, reviewing video footage on the sideline has become increasingly relied upon to assist with improving the identification of possible injury. However, as yet, a standardized method for reviewing such video footage in rugby league has not been published. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether independent raters reliably agreed on the injury characterization when using a standardized observational instrument to record video footage of National Rugby League (NRL) concussions. Video footage of 25 concussions were randomly selected from a pool of 80 medically diagnosed concussions from the 2013-2014 NRL seasons. Four raters (two naïve and two expert) independently viewed video footage of 25 NRL concussions and completed the Observational Review and Analysis of Concussion form for the purpose of this inter-rater reliability study. The inter-rater reliability was calculated using Cohen's kappa (κ) and intra-class correlation (ICC) statistics. The two naïve raters and the two expert raters were compared with one another separately. A considerable number of components for the naïve and expert raters had almost perfect agreement (κ or ICC value ≥ 0.9), 9 of 22 (41%) components for naïve raters and 21 of 22 (95%) components for expert raters. For the concussion signs, however, the majority of the rating agreement was moderate (κ value 0.6-0.79); both the naïve and expert raters had 4 of 6 (67%) concussion signs with moderate agreement. The most difficult concussion sign to achieve agreement on was blank or vacant stare, which had weak (κ value 0.4-0.59) agreement for both naïve and expert raters. There appears to be value in expert raters, but less value for naive raters, in using the new Observational Review and Analysis of Concussion (ORAC) Form. The ORAC Form has high inter-rater agreement for most data elements, and it can be used by expert raters evaluating video footage of possible concussion in the NRL. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Sri Lanka | 1 | 11% |
| Monaco | 1 | 11% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 22 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 15% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 25 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,155,755
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine - Open
#309
of 488 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,447
of 313,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine - Open
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 488 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,327 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.